Red Light Camera's
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1585
Printed Date: Nov 22 2024 at 1:23pm
Topic: Red Light Camera's
Posted By: Wots
Subject: Red Light Camera's
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 12:12am
|
Good article here. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-red-light-camerasjul15,0,7535797.story - Red-light cameras in Schaumburg screech to a halt -- chicagotribune.com “because crash data, prepared by the Police Department in June, revealed that the intersection does not have a problem with running-red-light accidents nor did it have one in 2008 when the cameras were installed. That fact angers Brian Costin, president of the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition, a citizens group that campaigned against the cameras last September. "I think Mayor [Al] Larson and the board did not do their due diligence," And what kind of due diligence was done by the city. Does “safety” have anything to do with these cameras? ------------- Wots Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers. |
Replies:
Posted By: Bwood
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 8:28am
|
If you run a red light, you could die. There really isn't anything you can do to stop people beyond that. The cameras are just a money maker.
------------- Looking for news or information on display technology? If so Visit the http://amonitorblog.blogspot.com/ - Monitor Blog |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 8:38am
| It would be interesting if Middletownusa.com requested the data used to determine the placement of the current cameras from the city. I would also like to see the data from the original placement of the cameras and then the data that was used to determine that the cameras were no longer needed at the old intersections that they were removed from. |
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 8:57am
|
I'm glad to answer your question. Clearly, I cannot speak for every community, but can tell you how it works in Middletown.
The first step in this process is to review the signalized intersections in the city to see where the collisions are occurring. Once this is done, the most dangerous intersections are selected and temporary equipment is installed to count the number of redlight violations over a given period of time. In other words, we know collisions are happening there, and need to know if red light violations are a major causative factor. In many instances we have found this is not the case, but rather the issue is speed, or assured clear distance or some other problem. Lastly, the intersection is examined from an engineering point of view to see if it is possible to construct the equipment. If all these criteria are met, a camera is installed.
The camera is not active until 1. the light is red, 2. has been red for 2/10th of a second, and 3. a vehicle is approaching at such a speed that it is unlikely to be able to stop. Once a possible violation is captured it is reviewed three times before a citation is issued. The reviewer looks at two photos and a video. In the first photo the vehicle must be completely out of the intersection (before the stop bar) and the light must be red. In the second, the vehicle must be completely in the instersection (no part straddling the stop bar) and the light must still be red. If, in the first, any part of the vehicle is in the intersection, the assumption is that the car entered on yellow and no citation is issued. Likewise, if any part of the car is outside the intersection in the second photo, the assumption is that the driver was able to stop prior to entering and no citation is issued. In theory, a driver could approach the intersection, stop at the light, then creep through and not activate the system. This is not the offender that is being targeted, only blatant violators recieve citations.
Yellow light time is set according to a formula develped by the Federal Highway Administration and ODOT and takes into account such things a road surface, grade, number of lanes and speed limit. It it not permissible to shorten the yellow time to try to garner more citations, nor would that be ethical or do anything to further the goal of improving safety on the roadways.
After installation there is typically a period of time where warning citations are issued. The goal is to change driver's behavior, and based on the results from the first set of cameras it is working. During the 2 week warning period a total of 150 warning citations were issued. In the first 2 weeks of actual citations this number dropped to 39. This was expected, as most drivers travel the same route on a daily basis, and become more careful at red lights.
After a citation is issued, the violator can pay the citation or request a hearing before a magistrate to contest the case. No points are assessed to the driver's license.
When the city changed vendors there were a number of locations where the number of accidents had been reduced to the point where cameras were no longer needed (Grand and Highview, for example, as well as First and Clinton). Again, this points to the fact that cameras do indeed work.
Lastly, and in my opinion, I cannot understand how someone can be against this program, provided it is administered properly. It's as if those against it feel it is permissible to violate the law as long as no one sees it. By that same thinking, a burglar could break into a business and, if there were no witnesses, never be arrested. This is a violator funded safety program where the goal is not to write tickets; it's to make sure the other fellow doesn't run the redlight and plow into your car or the car driven by your child. Does this generate revenue? Of course. There has to be some penalty for violating the law, but, again, the goal is to improve the safety of the citizens of Middletown. Some take offense with the use of technology to further this goal. If, however, the city hired 10 police officers and stationed them at the 10 most dangerous intersections with instructions to issue tickets and reduce collisions, it would be lauded as a wonderful safety program. Cameras are a more efficient, safer way of accomplishing just that.
I hope this helps, and answers your questions. Again, I cannot speak for all communities across our nation, but only for Middletown.
|
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 9:39am
|
Pacman -
Glad to answer that question, too. Current camera locations:
Roosevelt and Jackson Lane - 14 collisions in 2006, 14 in 2007 and 18 in 2008. Identified by ODOT as a high-accident location that should be targed for enforcement.
Central and University, First and University (treated as one intersection due to the close proximity of the signals) - 22 in 2006, 21 in 2007 and 15 in 2008. Again, identified by ODOT as a high-accident location needing enforcement.
Cincinnati Dayton and Oxford State - 25 in 2006, 30 in 2007 and 23 in 2008.
Central and Breiel - 15 in 2006, 11 in 2007 and 12 in 2008. These tend to be severe due to the relatively high speed limit on Breiel.
Intersections where they were removed:
First and Clinton - 1 in 2006, 1 in 2007 and 1 in 2008
Grand and Highview - 2 in 2006, 2 in 2007 and 4 in 2006
Both of these had much higher accident rates in prior years, which prompted their selection for cameras, however the current data does not indicate the need for enforcement.
There were other intersections that were worse that were not selected because of impending construction, such as 122 and Dixie Highway, or because they were not constructable, such as Roosevelt and Highland or Tytus and Verity. Some others that were audited yielded surprising results, such as Germantown and Verity, which has a high number of accidents but few red light violations.
Targeted enforcement at high accident locations is done on a weekly, if not daily, basis. There are STEP (Selected Targeted Enforcement Program) grants available from the State, which Middletown takes advantage of, as well as State funds to combat DUI. We regularly look at high accident locations and assign officers there (manpower permitting, which is a different story and not part of this issue.) The concept of selecting dangerous locations for directed enforcement is nothing new; it seems the change here is a change in the use of technology. One of the primary missions of any police department is to ensure the safety of the motoring public; this is one more tool to accomplish that mission.
|
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 10:06am
|
Thanks Major Hoffman.
I am familiar with basically 4 intersections some no longer have cameras.
Elliott and 122
Breiel and 122
Central and Breiel
Manchester/University and Breiel
For the above intersections was there an appreciable decline in accidents once the cameras were installed? It doesn't appear that the cameras have done much for Central and Breiel from your post as far as detering accidents, "Central and Breiel - 15 in 2006, 11 in 2007 and 12 in 2008. These tend to be severe due to the relatively high speed limit on Breiel."
Isn't it true that you are actually ticketing the owner of the vehicle, who may not be the operator of the vehicle in many cases. What happens with rental cars, leased vehicles, work vehicles etc. that are not owned by the driver in many cases?
Thanks in advance.
|
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 10:58am
|
Elliot and 122 showed a decrease in accidents and violations, however I don't have the numbers at my fingertips. The decrease was such that we did not survey this location.
The audit of Breiel and 122 (Roosevelt) showed too few violations, surprisingly, and the complexity of the intersection makes this location difficult. The number of violations dropped dramatically while the camera was there, indicating fewer drivers were running the red light, therefore fewer collisions were being caused by red light violations.
Central and Breiel is slated for a camera.
Manchester/University/Breiel had a camera capturing Norhtbound violations. The number of accidents (7, 5 and 8) could justify one, and the added benefit of inducing youthful highschool drivers to be more careful comes into play here, but the proper approach is Eastbound. That approach is not constructable due to driveways and terrain. The Northbound approach is not where the majority of violations are occurring.
The original camera locations were selected based on a 5-year (1999 to 2004, I believe) total of collisions by location. At that time, Central and Breiel 239 collisions, an average of 47 a year. This average is misleading, as the intersection had changed over those five years with better signals and other improvements, as well as improvements in automobiles, however it still bore inspection. This is a trouble spot that we have paid a lot of attention to.
It is true that the ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, much the same as a parking citation does. If, however, the owner is not the driver, the owner can fill out an affadavit included with the citation and send it in. The citation is then re-issued to the driver of the vehicle and all time limits begin anew. In the case of rentals, leases or work vehicles, the citation goes to the registered owner and they can either pay it or follow the process above.
There is no photo of the driver. This was done intentionally due to concerns of privacy issues. The citation includes a photo of the rear of the vehicle before the stop bar, a second photo showing the rear of the vehicle in the intersection, and a data bar indicating the date, time, location, speed of the vehicle, length of time the light was red and elapsed time between the two photos.
Keep in mind that red light cameras are only one tool we use to improve safety. Not only are other enforcement methods used, but the Traffic Engineering department stays busy looking at intersections, placing or removing lights, adjusting speed limits, etc. to keep the streets safe for pedestrians and motorists alike. Changes in traffic patterns, new roads and changing demographics in our neighborhoods all come into play when planning for an efficient, safe flow of traffic. It's a difficult, complicated job that many play a part in.
Glad to answer your questions. There is a lot of inaccurate or misleading information out there on this topic. All are entitled to their opinion, of course, but they should form that opinion based on accurate data, on this or any other issue.
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 11:17am
| Major Hoffman- One more question- there has been discussion over the course of the red light debate concerning the timing on the yellow lights prior to turning red. It appears to many here, that the timing on the yellow light portion, on various lights around the city, are inconsistent. There are intersections where the traffic light sequence has the light on green, (with traffic moving at a 45 MPH clip), turning yellow for what seems a second or two, then red before the car can clear the wider boulevard intersections. There are intersections in town where the yellow light timing is nearly non-existent. Perhaps there would not need to be this red light/rear end collision/running red light debate if the yellow light sequence was set so as to not "rush" people through the intersections (or slam on the brakes) and may give them time to safely make it through to clear, preventing opposite traffic hestitation. JMO |
Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 11:54am
|
Excellent information Major Hoffman. Thanks for taking the time out to explain how Red Light Cameras work in Middletown. There have been a number of misstatements on previous red light discussions, glad to see you set the record straight. ------------- http://www.johnbeagle.com/" rel="nofollow - John Beagle Middletown USA News of, for and by the people of Middletown, Ohio. |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 2:47pm
|
I was involved at a red light side impact several years ago and if it stops people from running through red lights then it's good. I'm always afraid of the abuse of the system to make money for whomever,but if it works. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 3:01pm
|
VietVet
The yellow is set by a formula developed by the Federal Highway Administration and ODOT. They take into consideration a number of factors; some constant, and some variable. The constants are reaction time, stopping distance and average length of vehicle. The variables are the speed limit, the width of the intersection and the grade of the road. Given this, it is not unreasonable that the yellow would be different at different intersections. The yellow time crossing Breiel at Roosevelt would be longer than crossing Grand at Orchard, and the shortest would be an intersection such as Marshall crossing Central.
No system is perfect and, of course, and sometimes things happen that could throw the timing off. If you have concerns about the timing of a particular intersection you can call Valerie Griffith, the Traffic Engineer at 425-7932. She is responsive to these issues and takes traffic safety very seriously.
|
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 3:57pm
|
Major:
Thank you for coming forward and addressing the questions put forward on this forum. It's a shame that other city officials will not do the same.
As a matter of disclosure, I have been caught once by the cameras, I WAS guilty. I paid without complaint, and have changed my driving habits, so the system works. (I also get "honked at" and "cussed at" a lot when I drive in other cities, by drivers behind me who have to slam on their brakes because they expect me to speed up and go through the changing signals.) ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: adamwlewis
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 4:28pm
|
I agree Mike, it would be wonderful if other city officials would JUST COMMUNICATE to the public. Major Hoffman has done a great job today in informing us and communicating with us. Two thumbs up from me. ------------- http://www.adamwlewis.com" rel="nofollow - Adam Lewis ' Blog |
Posted By: accuro
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 4:35pm
| Major Hoffman, thank you for your comments. I believe one of the most danegrous intersections in Middletown, at Breiel Blvd and Rosedale. Everyday I see countless drivers running the light on red on Breiel, but there is absolutely no camera. Also, this same intersection has a trigger which is improperly activated. You have to rock back and forth )and reverse 15 yards) to engage the light to switch from red to green. There is not a day I don't drive that I don't witness a speeder running that intersection, and it doesn't have a "safety" camera. I haven't been ticketed, and haven't had a ticket in decades, but this intersection defeats (in my opinion) there is a safety component to the camera(s). |
Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 4:36pm
This is the whole issue for me! I simply can not believe that the Yellows were not shorter that the they were before in the PREVIOUS Red Light Vendor's Equipment. It is my feeling that as soon as an Intersection got Cameras, the Yellow were shorter. Maybe they were more than the required Minimum before the Cameras went in, I don't know. This time around it may have been done right. The last time I heard a lot complaints and haven't so far this time. As to the "Formula", why not avoid controversy and make the Yellows a little more than the minimum? Ticketing anyone other than the Blatant Red Light Violator will be a strike against the Cameras. |
Major Hoffman wrote:Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 5:08pm
|
No surprise my way.
I have known Major Hoffman for probably 30 years.
He has always been a straight-up honest no-agenda person.
AND I was on board with the Citizens' Advisory Board to the Police Dept. when the camera discussions began. I was very strongly against this concept strictly because of the "big brother" aspect. Flick another switch, and these cameras can photo/ticket you for speeding and lord only knows what else. During my tenure on that board, I was hardly a "yes man" or "rubber stamp" for the dept. Major Hoffman, Chiefs Schwarber,Bruck and Becker had strong discussions on MANY topics. To their credit, all of those involved from the dept. were calm and reasonable(well.....) with everyone walking away as friends at the meetings' conclusion. That board owes so much to the efforts of the dept. to make it work in an honestly difficult situation.
I am now a firm believer in these cameras because overall, they DO save lives and serious injury.
And yes--I have been cited(one of the first, along with former chief Becker) at the Highland/Grand intersection.
Thank you Major for your time and explanations.
Hopefully more city officials will do the same here, and realize that the people posting here are hardly "the enemy" and nut cases(well....again) that many imply.
|
Posted By: tomahawk35
Date Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 11:37pm
| I have a question for you Major Hoffman and maybe you can clear this up for me because it has bothered me for a long time. I call the police station back a couple of years ago complaining about speeders on my street of residence and was told that the lack of manpower prohibited them from stationing a patrolman on our street which in return I ask if I could video this action and turn it in which I was told without the police actually seeing the speeders they couldn't do anything. This is the part that really bothers me, aren't the cameras supplying the same info that I offered yet tickets are issued without a patrolman actually being there. In my mind there seems to be a double standard and doesn't the accuse have the right to face their accuser in a court of law. I would appreciate it if you could put my mind at ease about this troubling situation. Thank You |
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 18 2009 at 1:04am
|
tomahawk35:
Regular traffic ordinances, as minor misdemeanors, generally require the offense be committed in the officer's presence. This is the case with speeding as well as traditional red light citations that are issued by an officer. The ordinance that covers red light camera citations is a different ordinance than the regular traffic ordinance and is written so that a citation can be issued on the basis of the photographic and video evidence. In other words, there are actually two different ordinances that cover red light running - one traffic, which is issued by an officer and requires the officer witness the violation, and one civil, which is the one that governs the red light cameras.
As for facing the accuser, anyone who receives a red light camera citation can contest the charge in front of a magistrate. The photos and video are reviewed and interpreted by an officer trained on the system and the magistrate makes a decision. This provides the due process that is required for any legal action. The evidence on red light camera citations is always convincing and there is no doubt the violation occurred. Typically, successful challenges to the citations come from drivers who testify that they were in an emergency situation, or weather conditions were such that they could not stop or something aside from the fact that they ran the light. These are known as "affimative defenses" - the offender admits the facts of the case, but has a valid, legal reason for taking the action that resulted in the violation. Very few drivers contest these citations, primarily because it is difficult to dispute a photograph and video of the violation.
On a related note, if an officer observes a violation that is also captured by the camera, the offender receives the traffic citation from the officer and not civil citation from the camera. That is part of the ordinance and avoids a double jeapardy issue.
Hopefully this answers your questions and puts your mind at ease.
|
Posted By: Nick_Kidd
Date Posted: Jul 18 2009 at 9:42am
|
Major Hoffman,
Thanks for speaking up about the red light cameras. If all that you said above is true then I don't understand how the following happened, maybe you can explain.
1. The Madison Life Squad was given a red light ticket for trying to save a life. At the time 80% of the ticket went to the camera company. So the $20 Middletown would have received was more important to the city than the patients life.
2. The yellow light at Marshal Road and Roosevelt Blvd. was timed with a digital camera to be two seconds or less. At the speed limit and the steel trucks coming through that intersection, I'm surprised that there was not a fatal accident. (Several other yellow lights were timed and all appeared to be shorter than required by the State. Could this explain the red light runners and accidents?)
3. There were several tickets issued to people that got stopped at the red lights. They took a day off work to go court. With the picture plainly showing that they did not run the red light, they though that the case would be thrown out. But no, they had to pay the $100 fine and come to court on another day to prove their innocence. After two days off work and finally proving with the city's picture that they had been falsely ticketed they were rewarded with having to pay $60 court cost. How many times were false tickets sent out? Did the city figure that most people would pay the $100 ticket rather then take days of work and then get robbed anyway? Or were the different people that looked at the pictures all incompetent? In my opinion there is no excuse for issueing a false ticket or for the malicious prosecution that comes from it. ------------- Government is not the answer to problems, government is the problem. |
Posted By: accuro
Date Posted: Jul 18 2009 at 10:09am
|
Mr. Kidd, to your point: If what you are stating is correct, the issue becomes is the timer on the intersections set prematurely. About 7 years ago, I was driving on Rt 4, and the light was yellow when I went through the intersection. Any professional safety officer will teach any driver, when the light is yellow, you have to commit to the intersection, that is, go through it at yellow. In my scenario, the matter occurred right by the light at the State Highway Patrol Office. I received my ticket, and went to court to face. Prior to this, I went to time the period from the change from green to yellow to red. It was less than 3 seconds. Next, I called the Ohio Department of Transportation and their engineering department, and they gave me the precise time by Ohio statute, the change from green to yellow to red transpired. At this intersection, it was set improperly. I went to court and prevailed. To your point: yes, the concept of course, is in a criminal matter, the expectation is the fine will be paid. Major Hoffman, I do not understand how an allegation of running a light is civil; its a M5 I believe in the criminal Ohio statute and I would be most curious to know what ordinance states running a red light is civil in nature. Although either civil or criminal is still an annoyance, running a criminal violation through the civil magistrate court would not seem to be correct. As for safety, my position is the worst intersection for actual chronic running of red lights is at Breiel and Rosedale. Yet, there is no camera there. Further, its a danger because the motorist has to drive in reverse about 15 yards backward, to properly trigger the light. I respectfully disagree this is an issue associated with safety, and the camera appearance discourages many from driving through Middletown. Thanks for your responses. ------------- An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out. - Will Rogers |
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 10:41am
|
Mr. Kidd;
1. We are not able to find in our records where a Madison life squad was ever issued a citation. When an emergency vehicle triggers the system and the citation process begins, the reviewers check to see if the emergency lights were operating. If they were, the citation is not issued. If they were not, we contact the agency in question and they research the call the vehicle was responding to and let us know if it was of a nature that warranted an emergency response. This is the process that would have been followed if the Madison life squad ran a red light. Additionally, it is not and has never been an 80/20 split.
2. I will pass your information on the length of yellow at Marshall and Roosevelt on to the traffic engineer. Also, if you give me the list of the several other yellow lights that were timed and appeared to be shorter than required by the State I will have her check these. I do know that the yellow was checked at each of the intersections where a camera was installed, and each of those meets or exceeds State requirements.
3. There are no court costs on red light camera citations, whether they are found guilty or not. The only thing they pay with a guilty finding is the amount of the citation. If someone told you they had to go to court on a red light camera violation, and paid $60 in court costs, they were not being truthful.
|
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 10:44am
|
Accuro:
The ordinance that governs automated red light violations is Chapter 418 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Middletown. This is the section that makes it a civil infraction. The ordinance that covers red light violations issued by an officer, and not involving the camera, is found in Chapter 414. Two separate ordinances, one civil and one traffic.
A check of the accidents at Breiel and Rosedale shows 3 in 2006, 4 in 2007 and 7 in 2008. So, while you may see a lot of violations, there is not an overly high number of accidents occurring there. The goal, remember, is to lower the number of accidents, not to just issue mass citations. The first step in the intersection selection process is to identify those with a lot of accidents; Breiel and Rosedale does not meet that first requirement.
I drive through that intersection several times a day, and you are correct, that is a frustratingly long light. I typically make a right turn on red there, so I am not familiar with having to roll back and forth to trigger the light. Is that primarily when travelling Westbound? I will have the traffic engineer check on that.
I'm also surprised that the system would discourage people from driving through Middletown. It seems that many look at this issue from the wrong side; they appear to believe that they will get a citation for not running a light, instead of thinking the cameras will deter the other driver from running a light and colliding with them, thus making this city a safer place to drive. It's a matter of perspective.
|
Posted By: Nick_Kidd
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 11:22am
|
Major Hoffman;
1. Your records are incomplete or else this ticket for the Madison Life Sqaud was swept under the rug.
2. The city should know if the timing of all yellow lights are within the state required timing.
3. You are either uninformed or do not know how our kangaroo court works. I will be happy to tell these citizens that did nothing wrong that not only did they get a false ticket and abused by the court but now they have been called liars. ------------- Government is not the answer to problems, government is the problem. |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 11:44am
|
Nick,I think Major Hoffmans' answers are text book. He is a policeman first and foremost. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 1:18pm
|
wow--I thought that the Major's answers were very clear and helpful.
He really can't answer in detail if he doesn't have the facts.
Mr.Kidd--I think you are way overboard with the tone and insinuations of your post. Maybe YOU should provide exact details so the situation can be further clarified.
We get a real city person here, answering good ?s accurately, and the crap/bad-mouthing happens.
Pretty pathetic imo
but jmo
|
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 2:20pm
|
Spider,you have to realize Major Hoffman is a police officer & employed by the city. The question is if he had actual knowledge that red light cameras were a rip off would he tell anyone on here ? I seriously doubt it. Plus as a policeman and city employee he isn't going to open himself up to or the city for liable. I liked his answers but I believe they are text book. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 2:22pm
|
Mr. Kidd;
1. The citations are a public record. There are laws that govern the release of that information. "Sweeping it under the rug" would be a violation of those laws. In addition to checking our records I spoke with the Madison Township fire department. The have no knowledge of receiving a red light camera citation. You can check this yourself by calling them at 424-3384.
2. To the City's knowledge, all the yellow times are set to State standards. You have raised an issue over several that you believe do not conform to these standards. If you provide the specific locations I will have someone check. If you have specific questions about how long the yellow should be, or would rather deal directly with the traffic engineer, you can call her at 425-7932. Traffic safety is something that is taken seriously; the electronics staff cannot be everywhere. They rely on information from other city employees and the public to make them aware of possible malfunctions.
3. I received the information regarding the court costs from the Clerk of Courts, Civil Division. You can check this information by contacting her at 425-7817.
|
Posted By: Major Hoffman
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 2:38pm
|
Hermes;
If I felt this was a bad program I would work to have it fixed. Failing that, I would work to have it abolished. Failing that, I would distance myself from it and not respond to questions. I think this is truly is a violator funded safety program that is operated fairly and without bias. You are correct in your statement that I am a police officer, and as such my integrity is my coin of the realm. As any officer knows, once your credibility is questioned you may never regain it. I would not risk that for anything, much less for a red light camera program.
I am truly puzzled by those who defend people who wantonly run red lights and put other motorists at risk. Red light cameras are designed to change the behavior of drivers. The punishment is a fine. They are no more a revenue generating device than are DUI laws, domestic violence laws or any other ordinance designed to keep the citizens safe from those who would violate them and engage in behavior that endangers the rest of society.
p.s. to accuro - while out for lunch today I observed a van blow right through the red light on Breiel at Rosedale. Unfortunately I was in an unmarked car and could not get a cruiser there quick enough to stop them.
|
Posted By: arwendt
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 3:24pm
|
Just wanted to hop in and say thanks to Major Hoffman for taking the time to explain the program and answer all these questions. Good stuff and thanks again!
------------- “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” Benjamin Franklin - More at my http://wordsoffreedom.wordpress.com/ - Words of Freedom website. |
Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 4:15pm
Now, Now. Do you think the City would have them if the COST the City more than they brought in? Absolutely Not! They ARE Revenue Devices. Now, if properly programed and administrated, they are acceptable Revenue devices. I have to be honest, when I hear the "talking points" that so many City Officials espouse about this, I really lose confidence in them. Mr Becker stated, when he was City Manager, that the Cameras were the result of an "Outcry" about Red Light runners. I have to say....I never believed him. If he will stretch the truth then, what else would he stretch the truth for. The City could prove me wrong by Donating ALL City portions of the Red Light Camera Revenue to the Community Foundation. Is there any chance of that? I don't think so! |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 6:20pm
|
Major Hoffman,I would never intentionally question your character on or off the job. My only point,as I stated,is that you are an employee and a policeman,if someone told you to drop the case what alternative would you have ? I'm sure your a firm believer in red light cameras and do your best to keep the public safe. As I stated in this thread I was involved in a side impact collision several years ago by someone who ran a red light. The person was found guilty and ticketed. Had there been cameras perhaps that person would have thought twice before making the attempt. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: accuro
Date Posted: Jul 20 2009 at 7:18pm
|
Major, thanks for the willingness to effect the proper adjustment on the intersection at Rosedale and Breiel. Indeed, both east and west sides have the same problem; unless 4-5 cars come up behind one another, neither side triggers the light to change. It would be an interesting challenge to test the constitutionality of the cameras being a civil matter, as they are not civil in Ohio they should be constitutionally in a municipality. It would seem if the argument is the cameras prevent accidents, then all cities and the state would mandate them. As for safety, I'm sure the vast majority of tragic accidents associated with one running a red light has nothing to do with attempts to actually run a red light, but a wandering mind, lack of focus, and then...someone is killed. The cameras don't trigger such an avoidance, they capture revenue. I've never been cited, but I believe unquestionably the usage is revenue or every state would have them installed as preventative, as well as the insurance lobbysists would be all for them. Thanks for the debate!
------------- An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out. - Will Rogers |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 21 2009 at 3:48pm
|
Someone mentioned to me this morning while I was having coffee that since the red light cameras work so well why doesn't the city lay-off or fire a percentage of it's police officers since they are not needed and save the city money ? ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 3:32am
|
Hermes:
I hope that you are kidding.
If anything, we need a GREATER police presence on the streets of Middletown. The last time I heard figures (this may be out-of-date) we had only eight or nine officers on patrol during the night shifts on weekends, and less at other times. I thought that more officers would be hired after the public safety tax increase passed, but I guess that $2 to $3 million per year got spent somewhere else. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Black&White
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 11:47am
|
Just my opinion...
As far as I know, the police force has been understaffed for many years. And I’m not debating where the money goes from any tax increase – since taxes cover all areas of city issues (I’m just thankful we weren’t not in the same shape as Hamilton regarding taxes). My guess is that adding the cameras was to alleviate the handful of officers on each shift to focus more on heavy crime (which is more prevalent in Middletown than most care to recognize), rather than traffic control.
Who are we to complain? We seem to get caught up in the fact - it’s not our job to make our community a safer place - it’s the government, city officials, police and fire departments. Yet, we complain about every little thing they do in attempts to create the safer community. All the while, we deny the fact that we’re part of the problem! There aren’t enough officers to keep up with careless drivers and heavy crime. But do we care - it doesn’t appear that we do. We continue to drive more carelessly, daring an officer to pull us over before we run in to someone else. Everyone seems to have a mindset of - no one can tell me what to do - so no one cares to obey even the simplest of laws (i.e. don’t run red lights). So when the police department sees that Person A doesn’t care to save Person B’s life, by keeping themselves from running a red light and hitting Person B...and they see that they don’t have the manpower to keep up with all the A-type people...they decide to put in cameras. What a brilliant idea! Let the camera take care of careless people that need a picture to tell them what they did wrong! Now the officers can focus on people that know exactly what they’re doing wrong! I’d figure, if so many people are against the cameras, they would consider obeying the law so that cameras don’t take their picture. Eventually, no citations would be issued, the police department would be happy that streets are safer, and the cameras would be removed. Who are we to complain – really? Wouldn’t you rather be considered a wise man? It would be wise to obey the law, and encourage others to do the same. No one wants to end up in an accident as a result of carelessness. I’d rather officers wouldn’t waste time dealing with my inability to drive. How awful, to think that an officer would stop and write me a ticket at the same moment a bank was robbed. I don’t want to be responsible for the robber getting away with that! So yes...put up those cameras! I’d rather they were at every intersection! If I’m dumb enough to run a light and risk mine or someone else’s life, then I’m deserving of a citation that tells the story of my wrong doings with bright colorful pictures! Again, this is just my opinion... ------------- There's no such thing as Gray. |
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 12:42pm
|
An example of what can be done if the Citizens choose to come together:
http://wedemandavote.com/pdfS/Red%20Light%20Camera%20Petition.v6.020808.pdf - http://wedemandavote.com/pdfS/Red%20Light%20Camera%20Petition.v6.020808.pdf
Voters ban traffic-light cameras Cincinnatians - the first voters in the country to decide whether their municipality should be able to use cameras to catch drivers running red lights - favor a camera ban. Issue 7, which would prohibit the city from installing cameras, passed 51 percent to 49 percent. City Council in August rejected a proposal by the city manager to begin contract negotiations with a camera company. Mayor Mark Mallory had said he would veto the ordinance if it had passed. Still, Councilman Cecil Thomas, chairman of council's Law & Public Safety committee, said he would consider resurrecting the issue in his committee - with a safety emphasis this time rather than a budgetary one. The camera plan came up late last year when council approved the current budget, which included $1 million in planned revenue from camera tickets. Thomas said, however, that it only made sense to wait until after the election to see what voters think of the cameras before bringing the issue up again. Proponents of the measure, including NAACP President Christopher Smitherman and lawyer Chris Finney of the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, said they wanted to push for the ban now so future councils could never put forth another camera proposal. They believe the cameras erode civil liberties, circumvent a driver's right to face his accuser and were put forth by city officials as a way to make money, not to improve safety. |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 1:50pm
| Mike- I was always under the impression that the last safety levy that passed was only to maintain the current force, not add officers. Don't think the money was spent elsewhere although, knowing the spending sprees this city is famous for, wouldn't surprise me that some of the levy money ended up elsewhere. |
Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 2:05pm
|
Double Post, sorry |
Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 2:07pm
Another rude and presumptuous opinion! |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 2:12pm
| Black and White- For me, the opposition for the cameras comes not from a safety aspect but rather, the old big brother- authority watching the private citizen without the "courtesy" of being present. Now, we are at a point where government isn't required to give you the courtesy of facing you, accusing you and fining you as they stick it to you. Too much authority from too great of distance for me. Some "government nose in our business" things like monitoring seat belt usage in one's own vehicle and keeping an eye on driving habits, for me, go way beyond the scope of governments role in people's lives. I obey the law as I have never received a ticket for running a red light or speeding in over 46 years of driving. Yet, I still think government ought to butt out of people's lives on things like this. Save the cameras for Pelican Bay and the other prisons/security needed areas. Leave the general public out of your "oversight " programs. Justice for the public would be the malfunctioning of the cameras, or perhaps, some obstructions for the camera lenses like they did out west. JMO |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 3:10pm
Mike,why would you hire more cops if cameras can do the job ? That makes no sense. If cameras can charge you with a crime there is no need for a cop. The cameras require no time off,no paid vacation,no union,no insurance,no gasoline,no nothing. The ultimate city employee. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 3:20pm
|
Two words describe what is wrong with your thinking Hermes... Big Brother ------------- http://www.johnbeagle.com/" rel="nofollow - John Beagle Middletown USA News of, for and by the people of Middletown, Ohio. |
Posted By: Hermes
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 6:41pm
John,my wife would call my way of thinking something else.
 I hate big brother too,but if you can't beat'em,join'em. If those cameras make money for the city they will never get rid of them. If a camera is on every street corner then we have no need for a police department. But we live in a police state anyway so I guess it is a mute point. ------------- No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !! |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 7:51pm
We do NOT need more police to do "red light patrol", and I'm sorry if my post was not clear.
But red light cameras cannot solve the problems with drugs that we have here, nor can they reduce thefts or burglaries. Red light cameras cannot stop gangs of youths from roaming our neighborhoods and vandalizing properties, and worse. When one is in trouble and needs help quickly, it will do no good to "call a red light camera." Red light cameras might be able to take a picture of a robbery or mugging in progress in the middle of an intersection, but even if the perpetrator can be identified from the picture, it will be of small comfort to the victim to know that a ticket for a civil offense will be mailed to the rogue a month later ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Black&White
Date Posted: Jul 22 2009 at 11:24pm
|
Well said Mike!
------------- There's no such thing as Gray. |
Posted By: accuro
Date Posted: Jul 23 2009 at 8:30am
|
Suggestion: as there are those are adamant that the citizens want the right to abolish wards to stack city council with Ward 3 individuals to cram whatever the city wants done without resistance, the petition for the fall should be added to have the abolishment of the red light cameras and put the dedicated funds for infrastructure back where they were in 1987, so they aren't used elsewhere. Does anyone know the city is spending more on asphalt on the bike trail than they have put on your roads for the past 3 years? Amazing. I appreciate Major Hoffman taking his time to address and respond to the posts, but having a camera does not prevent an accident. Red lights are run regardless, and usually when one is not thinking of the light, day-dreaming, mind wandering. Cameras are there to bring in revenue period. ------------- An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out. - Will Rogers |
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jul 23 2009 at 9:54am
|
Wow--so many opinions, valid points and inconsistencies from every angle.
I found b&w's thinking to be very logical.
The cameras don't create a lot of revenue, and at this time do nothing but photo red light violators. If these cameras catch the most flagrant traffic offenders and eventually deter drivers from dangerously running through major intersections(while freeing increasingly scarce and valuable police manpower), I don't see how this wouldn't be a good thing.
Big Brother is always a concern, however he is here now and has been here since LONG b4 the introduction of red light cameras.
The local crime situation is spiraling.
The retail business community is being devastated by petty theft and vandalism.
Employed property owners are fearful of what will happen daily when they leave their residences for job time. Some neighborhoods see pilferage every day.
The police dept. seems to be re-focusing on proper co-operation and apprehension, however the court system has completely disintegrated to the revenue-grabbing scenerio that keeps being mentioned here. Judges suspend virtually all jail time now in lieu of fines and most importantly(to them) the ever increasing court costs. Pay your court cost while ignoring fines and sentencing restrictions seems to be ok with the courts and probation depts. The SAME individuals are terrorizing our community on a continual basis, with the knowledge that they will spend little to no time incarcerated, and paying off judicial judgements is not really an issue. Therefore outside of abusing police officers and paying court costs, there is very little protection and punitive concern. Victims' rights are currently non-existant, and were totally ignored during Mr.Adkins' run as city prosecutor. Proper mandatory notifications of pleas, setllements and court dates simply didn't happen.
YES--the over-abundance of Section 8 DOES contribute to this situation, however it is only one factor and shouldn't shoulder the entire blame.
Economic Development should be far more encompassing than patronizing AK, the Atrium and CBL /Towne Mall. Our local govt. is hardly in a position for the "partnership" mentioned by our new ED front man. His plan was honestly nothing new or inspiring. Actually it was no real plan at all--simply common sense options that shift a large % of the cost back to the city. Not possible at this time.
Business retention has been totally ignored.
Existing businesses are the lifeblood of our community, and attention to their needs/survival would be FAR less costly, preserve FAR more jobs and could lead to possible business expansion and increased employment at a much SMALLER cost with significantly less expense and effort than the also needed recruitment of NEW business(which is very costly due to the high % of new business failures,start-up costs and uncertainty about the resources/competence of the new business owners).
IMO our current ED department has everything backwards, and I just met with them YESTERDAY.
JMO==where am I off here?
|
Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jul 23 2009 at 3:34pm
|
sj- I agree entirely with the $60.00 grab for court costs. That's the money maker, while "negotiating" the other allegations as "dropped." The previous reason for the heavy docket for Judge Wall is so many fines issued for every conceiveable minor infraction, to salvage the $60.00. I also agree Section 8 is a minor problem, it is not the all encompassing plaque in Middletown but it is unconscionable Middletown has 60% of the entire county's numbers. Frankly, where are these recipients getting work---there are no jobs in Middletown, but MUM is an excellent source of an education even at the associate level to "better" oneself.
As for ED, its more people with less outcome. All baskets put in Neyer and the east end. Staggering to see the $5Mm given to the Atrium to buy them land and they have $50Mm to put into digitizing medical records. As for cameras, is the $5Kk on average monthly worth the "big brother" perception within Middletown for those looking to buy? Not in my opinion. Now add the additional cost < than $3.00 for the street lights, and Middletown continues the path to making it a community "everyone" wants to avoid. Middletown's ED hasn't been effective for 30 years or more.
|